From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 14 10:31:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A74154A4; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:31:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id CAA18856; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:30:52 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <378CC473.279E62E@newsguy.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:10:11 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Brian F. Feldman" Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Swap overcommit (was Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2)) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Brian F. Feldman" wrote: > > > In which case the program that consumed all memory will be killed. > > The program killed is +NOT+ the one demanding memory, it's the one > > with most of it. > > So why don't we do something else: when we're down to a certain amount of > backing store, start collecting statistics. When we're out, we check the > statistics and find what process has been allocating most of it. We kill > that process. Because it's not only equally arbitrary but also takes more resources to implement? -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "Would you like to go out with me?" "I'd love to." "Oh, well, n... err... would you?... ahh... huh... what do I do next?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message